15 evidence on the attribution of individual responsibility for the alleged human rights violations against boys and girls, in the context of the events. 78. The State argues that it is not responsible for the alleged breach of Articles 11 and 21 of the American Convention for the alleged displacement and maintains that Article 11 of the American Convention was not admitted in the Admissibility Report. It alleges that the Inter-American Court has considered as victims of the violation of Article 21 those persons who have identified themselves effectively, and also with respect to whom loss of property has been proved. It alleges that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has also found such responsibility, when the victims were identified, the violation demonstrated and attributable to the State. It alleges that this has not been shown in the present case, so that it turns out to be impossible to assess the State's responsibility, and to confirm whether these persons' rights have been effectively restored, in the case that they belong to the Cacarica communities, on whom the collective title was conferred. 79. The State maintains that it is not responsible for the alleged violation of the right to equality before the law, to the prejudice of those displaced from the Cacarica basin. In this regard, it recognizes the special characteristics of the Colombian Afro-descendant population, and its commitment to take into account this population's special conditions in the determination of public policies. It considers, however, that this discussion is inappropriate in the present case, since it has not been shown that the alleged events were committed as an affront to their character as Afro-descendants. The State reiterates that the alleged displaced persons have also not been individualized and therefore it cannot be presumed that displacement on racial grounds is attributable to the State. From the foregoing, the State considers that it has not either been specifically proved or alleged that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to equality before the law. 80. As regards the alleged violation of the obligations contained in Articles 8.1 and 25 of the Convention, the State remarks that there are two investigations pending before the UDH-FGN relating to 21 22 the subject matter of the case: No. 426 for the crime of conspiracy to commit crimes and No. 2332 for the crime of homicide of a protected person - Marino López Mena - forced displacement and conspiracy to commit crimes. 81. As regards the status of the investigation filed under No. 426, the State stresses that it was initiated on July 21, 2001 against General (ret.) Del Río Rojas for the crimes of conspiracy to commit crimes, embezzlement of state property, and corrupt practices by omission. It indicates that, in particular, complaints are under investigation into the General's alleged collusion with illegal self-defense groups, between 1996 and 1997, the period when he acted as Commander of the XVII Brigade. 82. It indicates that having completed the investigation phase in observance of judicial and due process guarantees, and in light of the evidence collected, on December 9, 2004, it was decided not to proceed with an indictment against the suspect with the argument that there was no criminal responsibility for acts or omissions. 83. The State alleges that the serious accusations made by the petitioners on the development of this investigation, and the final decision to close it, have not been proved. It indicates that the motion for review filed by the Procurator General of the Nation on February 18, 2009 against the December 9, 2004, resolution to close the investigation constitutes evidence of the legality of the steps taken by the administration of justice in the said investigation. It indicates that on March 11, 2009, the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice decided to lift the res judicata effect of the Prosecutor's resolution and the corresponding reopening of the criminal investigation, by virtue of new 21 The State explains that this investigation was previously identified under numbers 1440 and 5767. Note of the Foreign Ministry, August 27, 2009, para. 170 22 The State explains that this investigation was indentified in the past under number 147301, of the 100th Public Prosecutor of Quibdó. Note of the Foreign Ministry, August 27, 2009, para. 170.